2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

On July 15, 2008, the Plaintiff newly constructed the five-story building (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) on the ground of OO-dong 894-1 large 244.6 square meters, 894-2 large 308 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant lands”) and completed the registration of transfer of ownership and registration of preservation of ownership of each of the instant lands on the same day after acquiring each of the instant lands from AAA on the same day on July 25, 2008.

On November 23, 2009, the Plaintiff decided to sell each of the instant lands and buildings to BB in 000 won, and completed each registration of ownership transfer on December 9, 2009.

In addition, on January 11, 2010, the Plaintiff entered the acquisition value of the instant building at KRW 000,000, and calculated gains on transfer of each of the instant land and buildings at KRW -00, and made a preliminary return on the tax base of capital gains to the Defendant.

However, in May 2012, the Defendant conducted an investigation into capital gains tax for the Plaintiff in 2008, and deemed the acquisition value of the instant building as 000 won at the actual transaction price, and identified gains on transfer of each of the instant land and buildings as 000 won and accordingly, notified the Plaintiff of the correction and notification of the capital gains tax and additional tax for the year 2008 as the sum of the capital gains tax and additional tax for the Plaintiff on August 1, 2012 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on October 26, 2012 regarding the instant disposition by asserting that the method of calculating the acquisition value of the instant building should be based on the conversion value, but was dismissed on December 6, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The plaintiff

The Defendant is unreasonable to view only the sum of the construction cost of the instant building and other documentary evidence as the actual acquisition value of the instant building. This is because, among the instant buildings, the part constructed by CCC Co., Ltd., the contractor of the instant building, is limited to a structural frame, and the rest of the construction is directly constructed by the Plaintiff, but the remainder of the construction is not equipped with documentary evidence.

Therefore, the actual transaction price at the time of the acquisition of the building of this case cannot be confirmed only with the construction contract statement of this case and other documentary evidence, so the acquisition price of the building of this case shall be based on the conversion price.

B. Defendant

The plaintiff, while operating the building business with the trade name of "DD", entered the particulars of expenditure for the building of this case in the book, and among the book value of 000 won, the amount of expenditure confirmed by evidentiary data is 000 won.

The building of this case is entirely constructed by CCC corporation, the contractor, and even if the plaintiff has installed additional construction works, as long as the data on the building is within the control area of the plaintiff who is difficult for tax authorities to access, it cannot be recognized as long as the plaintiff fails to submit evidentiary data.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s book value on the instant building considered only the portion equipped with evidentiary materials as the expenses actually incurred in the acquisition of the instant building, and the instant disposition recognized as the acquisition value of the instant building is lawful.

3. Determination

According to Article 97 (1) 1 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897 of Dec. 31, 2009; hereinafter the same), the acquisition value, one of the necessary expenses to be deducted from the transfer value, when calculating gains on transfer of a resident, shall be the actual transaction value required for the acquisition of the relevant asset (the main sentence of item (a). If it is impossible to confirm the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition, it shall be based on the transaction example, appraisal value, or conversion value prescribed by Presidential Decree. According to Article 163 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21881 of Dec. 14, 2009; hereinafter the same), the "actual transaction value" includes the amount equivalent to the acquisition cost calculated by applying mutatis mutandis Article 89 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act. Article 89 (1) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act stipulates that the acquisition value of assets is the sum of raw materials, production, labor charges, and other charges (including construction charges and public charges).

In this case, the Defendant deemed that the actual transaction amount of KRW 000,000 and KRW 000,000, including the construction cost equipped with evidence among the construction cost of KRW 000,000, which was recorded in the books of “DD” operated by the Plaintiff, was the actual transaction amount, and determined as the acquisition value of the building of this case (No. 2, 3, and 5).

In light of the fact that the data on the actual cost of construction of the building of this case is in the control area of the plaintiff, and that the time when the plaintiff filed a report on the transfer income tax, the data on the cost of construction of the building of this case is likely to be kept by the plaintiff since the time of the construction of the building of this case and the time of the plaintiff's report on the transfer income tax, and that there is no reasonable ground to not record the cost of construction of the building of this case in the account book, the expenses actually paid by the plaintiff for the construction of the building of this case are limited to the expenses of separate evidentiary materials out

However, according to the appraisal report (Evidence No. 3) on the building of this case, the building of this case is completed with the installation of internal and external finishing construction and creative construction, water supply and drainage facilities, elevators, fire-fighting systems, and electrical equipment. Among them, the fire-fighting systems are constructed by EE, and the drainage facilities are constructed by FF (Evidence No. 4), but these construction details are not included in the construction specifications attached to the construction contract agreement (Evidence No. 5) with the Plaintiff and CCC Co., Ltd., which are the contractor of the building of this case, but are not included in the construction specifications attached to the construction contract (Evidence No. 5) with the Plaintiff.

In addition, considering the fact that the total cost of the construction of the building of this case recorded in the Plaintiff’s account book is the same amount as that of the Plaintiff’s statutory standard price of KRW 000,000, which was applied at the time of reporting the acquisition tax on the building of this case on July 17, 2008, plus the acquisition tax and the registration tax of KRW 000,000, and that the Plaintiff’s account book is indicated as “other expenses not known to the Plaintiff’s place of use”, the cost recorded as the cost of new construction of the building of this case in the Plaintiff’s account book is merely deemed to have been written in accordance with the statutory standard price of the building of

As such, it is difficult to trust the details of the new construction cost recorded in the Plaintiff’s account book, and in addition, the standard appraisal value at the time of new construction of the building of this case reaches approximately KRW 0 billion (Evidence No. 3) and the appraised value at the time of the construction of the building of this case submitted by the Defendant under the appraisal report (Evidence No. 7) on the building of this case is conducted without finishing the interior wall and the floor, and it cannot be deemed that the construction of this case was completely completed, and the GG Office estimated that the construction cost will be incurred when the building of this case is newly constructed as the design of this case as of June 2012 (Evidence No. 4). In view of the circumstances such as the fact that the Plaintiff estimated that the construction cost would have been incurred when the building of this case is newly built as the design of this case as of June 2012 (Evidence No. 4), it is difficult to easily exclude the possibility that the actual amount of new construction cost exceeds the cost recorded in the account book.

As alleged by the Defendant, the data on the cost of the new construction of the building of this case is within the Plaintiff’s control area, and the Plaintiff transferred the data again about one year after the new construction of the building of this case to approximately one year, and was easy to collect and keep the data on the cost of the new construction, as seen above, there is a substantial difference between the cost and the cost of actual input. If the conversion value calculated by the method that reflects the change rate in the standard market price is inappropriate in assessing the acquisition value of the building, the tax authority can remove the unreasonable value by taking into account the application of transaction example, appraisal value, etc. in addition to the conversion value, if the conversion value calculated by the method that reflects the change rate in the standard market price is inappropriate, it is difficult

Therefore, the instant disposition that calculated the acquisition value of the building of this case by the actual transaction price method shall be revoked as it is unlawful.

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable and acceptable.